3 ms·

I am disappointed at the type of criticism of this post on Hacker News. This write-up is the kind of high-quality, original, analytical writing we so desperate

by vkb 10y ago

I am disappointed at the type of criticism of this post on Hacker News. This write-up is the kind of high-quality, original, analytical writing we so desperately need these days, in an online world that is completely saturated with clickbait that adds nothing to our understanding of the world. Is the piece lacking in some semantics? Perhaps. But I was struck by the comments about market share and Android strategy, rather than directly discussing the article and the points it makes about the two maps at hand.

Fnoord 10y ago
It is a rather long read about a specific topic. One could see it as a sign of respect of authority when the topic itself isn't discussed. At the very least the article isn't controversial. I'll admit I haven't read the full article. I quit during P2. It is TMI, extremely well detailed. I'd like to address the following two quotes from P1: > But today, with multiple zoom-levels, there’s plenty of room to show everything. Small businesses, apartment buildings, and even homes — no place is too small or too unimportant to be shown on today’s maps. Less is more. You don't want to show as much information as you can. The user does not want as much information as you can provide. This leads to information overflow. A user wants relevant information. It is up the developers of the app to decide for the user what information they want. A way to do this, is to change it based on zoom. However, beyond that, the information could be drawn from a variety of factors, likely aided my ML/AI. For example, take method of transportation. Is the user in a car (as passenger, or driver), or is the user cycling, or is the user using the metro, or bus? Another variable could be is the user new to this environment? or yet another: who is the user? ASL? Student? Income? Coffee drinker? Interested in a coffee right now based on previous habits? Etc Google knows those details much more accurate. They're after all an advertising company specialised in data gathering company. They also may know what the user is not interested in based on profiling and behaviour. This gives Google a clear edge in this field. (But I believe Apple will follow Google's footsteps in becoming more oriented in user data -perhaps, even do a better job, too; we'll see-) > The “POI” is dead — because today, every place is of interest. For the developer perhaps, but certainly untrue for the user. If you take Google Maps, it appears to prioritise transit information. Apple Maps doesn't. That makes Google Maps a better use case if you're interested in public transport. Google Maps very recently (14 jan update) pushed a new version of Google Maps with native Uber support which gives them yet another use case functionality.
- xander23 10y ago
  > Less is more. You don't want to show as much information as you can... 100% agree, but I don't think it's saying more is better. Rather that because maps now have dozens of zoom-levels (as opposed to just 1 with paper maps), they can show all sorts of things that wouldn't have been included before. Things like houses, small businesses, etc. Things that would've never been on a paper map. This makes the POI dead because now anything can be included, anything can be on the map (regardless of its importance). (Example from my own experience: Google maps has an outline of my house on it and even my backyard tool shed. But I've never seen a paper map that also had this.) Also 100% agree with you that personalization is awesome, but it seems like the whole point was specifically to examine the defaults. To see what decisions were made for the defaults and how it made the two different.
  - Fnoord 10y ago
    > Rather that because maps now have dozens of zoom-levels (as opposed to just 1 with paper maps), they can show all sorts of things that wouldn't have been included before. Things like houses, small businesses, etc. Things that would've never been on a paper map. Yes, I got that point, but I think my counterpoint was stronger. Perhaps I'm odd, but a POI which doesn't have my interest is not a POI. If I'm in Paris, and I have no interest in seeing the Eiffel Tower, then the Eiffel Tower is not a POI for me. It may very well be one for other people, and I respect that, but I've seen the damn thing on multiple pictures already (I've seen it IRL as well). So from a technical PoV the POI is dead because everything can be a POI? This suggests the developer believes more is better. Whereas when I looked at Google Maps reducing the amount of information I get the impression they realise less is more. The default should not matter. Do the default search results on Google Search matter? Given the rise of the bubble, less and less. I hope the same can be true for Google Maps and Apple Maps. At the same time, we must be careful to regularly think outside of our bubbles, or look into the bubbles of others (e.g. your wife's, son's, aunt's, etc).
    - xander23 10y ago
      > I think my counterpoint was stronger. No, what I was saying was that your counterpoint isn't a counterpoint. A counterpoint would be: Google shouldn't show new kinds of things on the map (such as houses, small businesses, etc.). The OP is talking about new kinds of things, while you're talking about the density of things. And the OP actually makes the same argument you're making a few paragraphs later: > we’re also seeing the argument for map personalization: Not everyone uses transit, so there might be places—such as landmarks—that are more important to some people. And when it’s life-and-death, hospitals are the most important places in the world. But how often does the average person visit a hospital? Personalized maps are better at surfacing the most appropriate places for each person; but for the default map, something still has to be chosen… and that’s what we saw above. Personalization is great, but something still has to be chosen for the default. That's why the default matters.
xander23 10y ago
I just wanted to say thank you to author for this incredibly high quality, well done piece. Looking forward to reading the next parts!

by vkb 10y ago

Fnoord 10y ago

It is a rather long read about a specific topic. One could see it as a sign of respect of authority when the topic itself isn't discussed. At the very least the article isn't controversial. I'll admit I haven't read the full article. I quit during P2. It is TMI, extremely well detailed. I'd like to address the following two quotes from P1: > But today, with multiple zoom-levels, there’s plenty of room to show everything. Small businesses, apartment buildings, and even homes — no place is too small or too unimportant to be shown on today’s maps. Less is more. You don't want to show as much information as you can. The user does not want as much information as you can provide. This leads to information overflow. A user wants relevant information. It is up the developers of the app to decide for the user what information they want. A way to do this, is to change it based on zoom. However, beyond that, the information could be drawn from a variety of factors, likely aided my ML/AI. For example, take method of transportation. Is the user in a car (as passenger, or driver), or is the user cycling, or is the user using the metro, or bus? Another variable could be is the user new to this environment? or yet another: who is the user? ASL? Student? Income? Coffee drinker? Interested in a coffee right now based on previous habits? Etc Google knows those details much more accurate. They're after all an advertising company specialised in data gathering company. They also may know what the user is not interested in based on profiling and behaviour. This gives Google a clear edge in this field. (But I believe Apple will follow Google's footsteps in becoming more oriented in user data -perhaps, even do a better job, too; we'll see-) > The “POI” is dead — because today, every place is of interest. For the developer perhaps, but certainly untrue for the user. If you take Google Maps, it appears to prioritise transit information. Apple Maps doesn't. That makes Google Maps a better use case if you're interested in public transport. Google Maps very recently (14 jan update) pushed a new version of Google Maps with native Uber support which gives them yet another use case functionality.

xander23 10y ago
> Less is more. You don't want to show as much information as you can... 100% agree, but I don't think it's saying more is better. Rather that because maps now have dozens of zoom-levels (as opposed to just 1 with paper maps), they can show all sorts of things that wouldn't have been included before. Things like houses, small businesses, etc. Things that would've never been on a paper map. This makes the POI dead because now anything can be included, anything can be on the map (regardless of its importance). (Example from my own experience: Google maps has an outline of my house on it and even my backyard tool shed. But I've never seen a paper map that also had this.) Also 100% agree with you that personalization is awesome, but it seems like the whole point was specifically to examine the defaults. To see what decisions were made for the defaults and how it made the two different.
- Fnoord 10y ago
  > Rather that because maps now have dozens of zoom-levels (as opposed to just 1 with paper maps), they can show all sorts of things that wouldn't have been included before. Things like houses, small businesses, etc. Things that would've never been on a paper map. Yes, I got that point, but I think my counterpoint was stronger. Perhaps I'm odd, but a POI which doesn't have my interest is not a POI. If I'm in Paris, and I have no interest in seeing the Eiffel Tower, then the Eiffel Tower is not a POI for me. It may very well be one for other people, and I respect that, but I've seen the damn thing on multiple pictures already (I've seen it IRL as well). So from a technical PoV the POI is dead because everything can be a POI? This suggests the developer believes more is better. Whereas when I looked at Google Maps reducing the amount of information I get the impression they realise less is more. The default should not matter. Do the default search results on Google Search matter? Given the rise of the bubble, less and less. I hope the same can be true for Google Maps and Apple Maps. At the same time, we must be careful to regularly think outside of our bubbles, or look into the bubbles of others (e.g. your wife's, son's, aunt's, etc).
  - xander23 10y ago
    > I think my counterpoint was stronger. No, what I was saying was that your counterpoint isn't a counterpoint. A counterpoint would be: Google shouldn't show new kinds of things on the map (such as houses, small businesses, etc.). The OP is talking about new kinds of things, while you're talking about the density of things. And the OP actually makes the same argument you're making a few paragraphs later: > we’re also seeing the argument for map personalization: Not everyone uses transit, so there might be places—such as landmarks—that are more important to some people. And when it’s life-and-death, hospitals are the most important places in the world. But how often does the average person visit a hospital? Personalized maps are better at surfacing the most appropriate places for each person; but for the default map, something still has to be chosen… and that’s what we saw above. Personalization is great, but something still has to be chosen for the default. That's why the default matters.

xander23 10y ago

I just wanted to say thank you to author for this incredibly high quality, well done piece. Looking forward to reading the next parts!